Two Surprising Results

Could be wrong but interesting even if they are wrong:

Data on 25 major [US] cities … 1900-1940 … municipal-level public health efforts that were viewed as critical in the fight against food- & water-borne diseases. … None … contributed substantially to the observed declines in total & infant mortality" http:/

A tweet about that one.

Is the USA first in public health?

1. For per capita prevention, the U.S. is a clear first in the world.  (I wonder, by the way, to what extent this contributes to higher health care costs in the United States, since preventive care also can drive doctor and hospital visits.)

2. The UK and France made a deliberate decision to switch away from public health to curative medicine, after the end of World War II, when they were building out their universal coverage systems.

3. The American history with public health programs is a pretty good one, with advances coming from the anti-smoking campaign, lower speed limits, anti-drunk driving initiatives, fluoridated water, and mandatory vaccination programs.

4. The British fare poorly on various public health metrics.

5. “The US system of public health fares rather well compared to other Western nations.”  On net, our population is not as anti-science as it may seem, at least not if we look at final policy results, as compared to some of our peer countries.